Why the Business Press Won't Tell You Bidenomics Is Working

Pessimism is baked into the culture of economic reporting.

Even when filled to the brim, a glass must be always half-empty to the business press.

In August 1989 my friend Gregg Easterbrook published a classic New Republic essay on business journalism titled “The Sky Is Always Falling: Why All Economic News Is Bad.” I’d say it should be assigned reading at every journalism school, except Gregg also wrote a classic essay (for the Washington Monthly; I can’t find a link) saying journalism school was a waste of his time and money. Here’s the nut graf of Gregg’s piece on economic reporting:

[A]lmost any economic development is both good and bad—good in someways, bad in others. An expanding economy reduces unemployment, but at some point risks inflation. A strong dollar makes consumer goods cheaper (reducing inflation), but makes American products less competitive. Not only does a change in one direction in any economic variable—interest rates, commodity prices, etc.—create its own pros and cons. It also creates the possibility that policy-makers will throw the machine into reverse, producing exactly the opposite pros and cons. (Too-vigorous growth, for example, will lead the Fed to tighten and risk recession.

My latest New Republic piece draws on Gregg’s wisdom, updated to 2023, to explain why the business press isn’t reporting the obvious success, thus far, of Bidenomics. Might it turn into failure next year, next month, next week? How the hell should I know? I can’t see into the future, and neither can the Wall Street Journal. That’s no reason not to acknowledge the success Biden has achieved (or, if you prefer, stumbled into) during the past two and a half years. You can read my piece here.